export_node_assets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return value (list of absolute paths) and gives an instruction to open files rather than invent paths. However, it does not mention behavior like file overwriting, error handling, or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and every part adds value. The instruction to 'never invent SVG paths' is important and efficiently placed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. The tool has 5 parameters with full schema coverage, and the description adds helpful context. It could mention whether files are overwritten or appended, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and parameters are well described. The description adds context by explaining what each boolean output option produces (image binaries, true-geometry SVG, PNG). This enriches the schema beyond the basic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool exports real assets (image binaries, node.svg with true geometry, node.png) for one node. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'REAL' and 'never invent SVG paths', making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when true binary assets are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like export_design_spec or export_asset_pack. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.